CMA drip pricing investigations: the warning that came first
In short: The CMA drip pricing investigations into Trainline, Virgin Atlantic and RED Driving School were opened on 18 August 2026, and each firm had received a CMA advisory letter nine months earlier. Under section 225(4)(b) of the DMCCA, omitting the total price from an invitation to purchase is unfair without proof that any consumer was misled. No finding has been made.
Three companies that received a warning letter from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) about their pricing in November 2025 are now under formal investigation for the practice the letter described. The CMA opened cases against Trainline, Virgin Atlantic and RED Driving School on 18 August 2026 and announced them the following day. In each case the CMA is examining whether a fee the customer cannot avoid appeared in the price shown at the start of the purchase.
Key findings (CMA, 19 August 2026)
- The CMA observed fees of £0.59 to £2.79 on Trainline train ticket transactions, and a £1.50 booking fee on coach bookings. Source: CMA press release, 19 August 2026.
- The Virgin Atlantic case concerns mandatory resort fees and local taxes on package holidays, which the CMA says vary but can cost hundreds of pounds. Source: CMA press release, 19 August 2026.
- The RED Driving School case concerns a mandatory booking fee and a digital fee of more than £7 per booking. Source: CMA press release, 19 August 2026.
- The CMA reviewed more than 400 businesses in 19 sectors, found concerns in 14, and wrote to 100 of them on 18 November 2025. All three firms now under investigation were recipients of CMA letters. Source: CMA press releases, 18 November 2025 and 19 August 2026.
- Since the direct enforcement powers took effect in April 2025 the CMA has secured more than £1.95 million in refunds for consumers and imposed fines totalling almost £6.2 million. Source: CMA press release, 19 August 2026.
| Trader | Fees examined | What the CMA has done | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Automobile Association Developments Limited (AA and BSM driving schools) | Mandatory booking fees on driving lessons | Gave a final infringement notice with a penalty of £4.2 million, including a 40% reduction for settlement, and secured refunds | 15 April 2026 |
| TICKETBIS S.L. (StubHub UK) | Mandatory fees on ticket sales | Gave a final infringement notice with a penalty of £889,200, including a 40% reduction for settlement, and secured refunds | 23 June 2026 |
| Trainline.com Limited | Mandatory fees on train and coach tickets | Opened an investigation; no finding made | 18 August 2026 |
| Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited | Resort fees and local taxes on package holidays | Opened an investigation; no finding made | 18 August 2026 |
| RDS Driving Services Limited (RED Driving School) | Booking fee and digital fee on driving lessons | Opened an investigation; no finding made | 18 August 2026 |
Why an advisory letter matters even though it creates no obligation
A recipient of an advisory letter is under no obligation to act on it. The CMA does not publicise the names of the businesses it writes to unless it later opens a case against them, so the 100 recipients of the 18 November 2025 letters were not identified at the time, and each kept the choice of what to do next. The letter matters for a different reason: from that date, the recipient knew what the regulator thought of its pricing. The CMA said on 19 August 2026 that it wrote to all three firms as part of that first drive, that each firm was on notice from that point, and that its concerns about their pricing had not been resolved by the time it opened the cases.
Two firms from the eight investigated alongside those letters have already paid. Automobile Association Developments Limited, trading as the AA and BSM driving schools, received a final infringement notice on 15 April 2026 carrying a penalty of £4.2 million and an obligation to refund booking fees. TICKETBIS S.L., which operates stubhub.co.uk, received a notice on 23 June 2026 carrying £889,200 and the same refund obligation. Both penalties include a 40% reduction the CMA gave for admissions and a streamlined procedure, and both firms agreed not to appeal.
The total price duty under section 230 of the DMCCA
A trader making an invitation to purchase must give the consumer the total price of the product, and section 230(4) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) defines that total to include any fee, tax, charge or other payment the consumer will necessarily incur on buying. A booking fee every customer pays, and a resort fee a traveller cannot decline, are both part of the price. The label the trader puts on the charge does not decide the question; whether the customer can avoid paying it does.
Section 230(9) treats information given in a way that is unclear or untimely, or in a way the consumer is unlikely to see, as information omitted. A charge that first appears three screens into a checkout has been omitted for the purposes of the section, even though the customer sees it before paying. Where part of the price genuinely cannot be calculated in advance, section 230(2)(c) and (5) require the trader to explain how it will be calculated, with the same prominence as the price itself.
Under section 225(4)(a) of the DMCCA, a misleading action, a misleading omission, an aggressive practice or a breach of professional diligence is unfair only where it is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken. Omitting material information from an invitation to purchase is unfair under section 225(4)(b) without that further test. A trader arguing that its customers would have bought anyway is answering a test that does not apply to it.
Under section 237(6) a trader that omits material information from an invitation to purchase also commits a criminal offence. The CMA has used its administrative powers in every drip pricing case it has concluded so far, and the offence remains available to the local weights and measures authorities that share the enforcement duty under section 231.
Why the warning letter changes the analysis
Section 229 measures a commercial practice against the standard of skill and care a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers, judged against honest market practice or the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field. A trader that has had the regulator’s concern in writing for nine months, alongside published guidance describing the same practice, stands differently on that question from one that has not.
The CMA also takes the warning into account when it sets the penalty. Under section 182(6) it may impose a fixed penalty of up to £300,000 or, if higher, 10% of the respondent’s turnover, and under section 183 it may direct enhanced consumer measures, including compensation. The CMA reduced both settled penalties by 40% for cooperation. It also has nine months of monitoring after a written warning available to it when it sets a figure, and it said on 19 August 2026 that its concerns persisted through that period.
Implications for traders charging mandatory fees
The CMA applies the same test whatever the trader’s sector. It has now opened or concluded drip pricing cases in secondary ticketing, driving instruction, rail and coach retailing and package travel, and the November 2025 letters went to businesses in 14 sectors including holidays, parking, cinemas, food and drink delivery, gyms, letter and parcel delivery, fashion and online vouchers. The CMA set out how it applies these provisions in its price transparency guidance (CMA209, current version dated 13 February 2026), which covers both drip pricing and partitioned pricing, and in its unfair commercial practices guidance (CMA207).
Conduct before 6 April 2025 falls to be judged under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which the DMCCA preserved for that purpose by section 252, and the CMA has said that failing to include mandatory charges upfront was unlawful under those Regulations for years before the new regime. The change since 6 April 2025 is the enforcer’s route: the CMA now decides whether consumer law has been broken and imposes the penalty itself, without recourse to the courts. The scope of an enforcement response engagement is set out on the investigations and enforcement support page, and the wider consumer enforcement work of the CMA is covered on the competition enforcement and litigation page.
The same direct enforcement powers are in use elsewhere on pricing and contract presentation. The CMA applied them to consumer reviews in its first round of Part 3 cases, to subscription renewal information in the Microsoft investigation opened on 27 July 2026, and the fairness of the terms themselves is governed separately under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the reissued CMA37 guidance.
Viewpoint
I read the November 2025 letters as the CMA building a record. It reviewed more than 400 businesses and wrote privately to 100 of them, without naming a single recipient. Nine months later it has opened cases against three recipients and stated in terms that the letters put those firms on notice and that its concerns survived the monitoring that followed. That sequence is now the template for this regime, and the other recipients of those letters are in the position these three were in a month ago.
A regulator’s warning is worth what the recipient does with it. A letter of this kind usually arrives with the team that owns the commercial practice rather than the team that owns compliance, and the decision that follows is taken on commercial grounds without anyone testing the pricing against section 230. That decision is harder to defend on this limb than on most. A trader accused of a misleading action can argue about what the average consumer would have done; a trader that left a compulsory fee out of the price first shown has no equivalent argument, because Parliament did not require one to be answered. Whatever the CMA concludes about these three firms, the interval between the letter and the case is the part of this story that other traders can still do something about.
Frequently asked questions
What is drip pricing?
Drip pricing is the practice of adding mandatory charges after the headline price, either by separating them from it or by introducing them later in the buying process. The CMA treats it as a failure to give the consumer the total price of the product in an invitation to purchase, contrary to section 230 of the DMCCA. Partitioned pricing, where the parts of a price are shown but the total is not, raises the same issue.
Has the CMA made any finding against Trainline, Virgin Atlantic or RED Driving School?
No. The CMA opened the three investigations on 18 August 2026 and states that at this initial stage it should not be assumed that any of the firms has infringed consumer protection law, and that no finding has been made. Each case page records an initial evidence-gathering phase running from August 2026 to January 2027, with the next case update expected in January 2027.
What penalty can the CMA impose for drip pricing?
Under section 182(6) of the DMCCA the CMA may impose a fixed penalty of up to £300,000 or, if higher, 10% of the respondent’s turnover, and under section 183 it may direct enhanced consumer measures including compensation for affected customers. The two settled drip pricing cases produced penalties of £4.2 million and £889,200, each reduced by 40% for settlement, together with refunds of the fees charged.
Does a mandatory fee have to appear in the headline price?
Section 230(4) of the DMCCA defines the total price to include any fee, tax, charge or other payment the consumer will necessarily incur on buying the product, so a charge the consumer cannot avoid forms part of the total price the trader must give. Where part of the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, section 230(2)(c) requires the trader to explain how it will be calculated, with the prominence section 230(5) requires.
For advice on pricing presentation, an advisory letter from the CMA or a consumer enforcement investigation, contact Rob Bratby at Bratby Law.
